The New Gimmick-Age of the WWE

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Sean O'Haire as the Devils Advocate - another religious gimmick like Friar Ferguson.

 

Nathan Jones as the Insane Prison Inmate - A smarter version of Nailz?

 

Professor of Thugonomics John Cena - Whoomp There it is.

 

Is there any real differences here? I mean, aside from better production values?

 

I don't have any problems with Gimmicks - I am all for The Creative Team to be, well, creative, but what really screwed the gimmicks back then, aside from being corny and half-assed, was that none of them had clear MOTIVATION for being there. Why does Sean O'haire want to be in the WWE? Why does Nathan Jones want the title? If we can't understand why they are wrestlers and wrestling, why should we care?

[Zetterberg is God 0]

Sometimes it doesn't make sense. Take IRS. Why would an auditor from the IRS leave his secure job to come get beat up for a living? These gimmicks should be believeable, otherwise, why bother?

[Guest EternallyLazy]

I hope they find some way to explain that Nathan Jones IS a wrestler... and was trained as a wrestler. Otherwise it looks like some crazy inmate deciding to take up wrestling as a day job.

 

But I'm all for it. So far the vignettes are making me excited about these two guys. The vignettes for O'Haire make me think that his gimmick is going to be Waylon Mercy 2003

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

The WWF's greatest asset is their production values - no doubt. The Vignettes are very well done establishing the character, which is very important for any wrestler, but I just can't help thinking about the Dumpster Vignettes where they mocked the Michael Jordan commercials.

[Guest nikowwf]

So the WWE needs to explain that Nathan Jones is a wrestler? Um, huge freaking guy, coming to the WWE. Is their confusion? I must be missing it...

 

niko

[Guest Rob Edwards]

You don't need to call them a wrestler, as long as they have some background which involves needing to be tough they'll be fine in that regard

[Guest Choken One]

I think it's a clear difference between the 1993 Gimmick Age and the 2003 gimmick age.

 

This time around, they appear to be more serious and constroversial topics and the Video Production certaintly enhances the characters.

 

Imagine Goldust debuting today, It would be The greatest thing ever, just like Sean Devil's Advocate O Haire is today.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

I hope they find some way to explain that Nathan Jones IS a wrestler... and was trained as a wrestler. Otherwise it looks like some crazy inmate deciding to take up wrestling as a day job.

Sad part is, He Wrestles like that anyway. His gimmick is Interesting, though.

 

I just read this on 1Wrestling

 

Sean O'Haire's latest video that aired this past Monday featured him questioning the existence of God. That will not be a major part of his character. His character will be that of someone who questions everything to get other people angry.

[Guest notJames]

Doesn't character development and motivation come out over time? Do you want a complete bio of everyone coming into the Fed right away, or do you want that sort of thing to evolve naturally?

 

After all, people you meet on the street don't just come up to you and hand you a resume, right?

 

Give it time...

[Guest subliminal_animal]

Sean O'Haire as the Devils Advocate - another religious gimmick like Friar Ferguson.

 

Nathan Jones as the Insane Prison Inmate - A smarter version of Nailz?

 

Professor of Thugonomics John Cena - Whoomp There it is.

 

Is there any real differences here? I mean, aside from better production values?

 

I don't have any problems with Gimmicks - I am all for The Creative Team to be, well, creative, but what really screwed the gimmicks back then, aside from being corny and half-assed, was that none of them had clear MOTIVATION for being there. Why does Sean O'haire want to be in the WWE? Why does Nathan Jones want the title? If we can't understand why they are wrestlers and wrestling, why should we care?

These are good gimmicks, though. Cena is funny as God knows what. And I think O'Haire and Jones already have the two most intriguing characters since Raven and Pillman. I'm not sure that'll last once they are actually put on the shows.

 

I don't know who's been coming up with most of the ideas for the vignettes, but I'm inclined to believe it could be the same person. This is high-quality stuff to me, and it's strange someone's putting it out at a time when I find both shows (more Raw than Smackdown) to be underwhelming in terms of storylines and character development.

 

Sometimes it doesn't make sense. Take IRS. Why would an auditor from the IRS leave his secure job to come get beat up for a living? These gimmicks should be believeable, otherwise, why bother?

His studies showed that all WWE good guys were tax cheats, and since he was tougher than all the other nerds, the Service thought it would be best to send him down, since he can beat people up. That's the only language subhuman (good guy) professional wrestlers understand anyway. The IRS was still paying him, duh. Why else would he still be so dead-set on getting those taxes he didn't work with them anymore?

 

And beat up for a living? He always won! He was a champ in the squared circle!

[LooseCannon25 0]

O'Haire is playing a devils advocate role...it seems very cool so far as does Nathan Jones. Why do you have to explain why someone wants to be a wrestler? Does everyone who comes to work for the WWE have to provide an explanation in their promos???? Anyway, speaking of Waylon Mercy.......i thought that was a tremendous gimmick and loved it, Spivey played it so well. I always wanted to see them bring it back. It would have to be someone who acts nice and stuff but has that face that you know he's really a bastard.

[Guest nikowwf]

The whole thing with these gimmicks is they need to be strong heels as well as having strong gimmicks. If Cena was winning consistently instead of jobbing to rikishi or being beaten by rikishi 2,005 times in a row he'd be more effective.

 

Jones wrestling is painful to watch, so they need to protect him A LOT. He should be kept very fresh and special.

 

nikO

[Guest oldschoolwrestling]

I hope they find some way to explain that Nathan Jones IS a wrestler... and was trained as a wrestler. Otherwise it looks like some crazy inmate deciding to take up wrestling as a day job.

He's coming to the WWE to get revenge on the prison guard that roughed him up. That would be the Big Bossman.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Nathan Jones = [(Nailz - Jumpsuit) + (Outback Jack - Crockadile Dundee) + (Norman the Lunatic - Teddy Long + Some sanity)] ^2 (hoss factor)

 

John Cena = [(PN News -350 lbs) * Vanilla Ice] + marginal talent

 

Something like that..

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Guys, would you prefer "Hotshot Rookie" or "Big guy"? At least they have characters.

 

Nathan Jones: Monster heel with a Mankind twist. Sounds good if given a face who can play off him.

 

Sean O'Haire: Friar Ferguson was a comedic dancing priest. This guy is an hedonist. I don't see the connection. Sounds fun.

 

John Cena; He's perfect for this character and he's making the gimmick work.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

He's right.

 

Earlier this year every new guy was "plucky youngster"(Cena,Orton) or big angry monster(Lesnar,Batista). Atleast they have osmethingf to build off now.

 

BTW don't diss IRS!!

[Guest mach7]

Sean O'Haire as the Devils Advocate - another religious gimmick like Friar Ferguson.

Right. You're comparing Sean O'Haire to Friar Ferguson (aka Bastion Booger)? Gimmie a break. Whether we're talking about the gimmicks or the wrestlers... neither have anything in common! Someone playing Devil's Advocate doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a "religious gimmick." He's more or less coming off as someone who "put's over" that mankind should just admit that we're just a carnal and base race of beings.

[Guest Choken One]

If talks about Religon and Adultry already, what next on his agenda? Homosexuality? Violence? Lust? Greed? Gluttony? I don't want to turn this into a Se7en sins thing so what remains? Could he challenge all the comandments?

 

U think we will just keep having This Advocate segments but we never see him show up to the arena...I think that would be a creative way to utilize his character...It would really keep him a hated person and cover his wrestling. Once he wrestles, then the Aura is lost (Ala Goldust and Crow Sting). I'd love it if he just kept these little segments.

 

Nathan Jones-My only beef? His name but if he does his job, then Nathan Jones can be a good name. Very few names really sound cool at first but they establish themselfs and the names become a reconigzable thing and then it will work.

 

John Cena-This is drastically different then all the other Wrestling Music inspired gimmicks...Sure he looks like Vanilla Ice but I could see him catching Major mainstream heat for his racist comments. Why even wrestle? How about he just manage? It worked for Mike Sanders and it can work for him.

[Guest Your Olympic Hero]

I hope they find some way to explain that Nathan Jones IS a wrestler... and was trained as a wrestler. Otherwise it looks like some crazy inmate deciding to take up wrestling as a day job.

While he wasn't in solitary confinement in prison, the prison held wrestling matches (like the boxing matches in the movie Undisputed). Jones was never defeated and even seriously hurt a few people.

[Guest Ash Ketchum]

Your Olympic Hero just gave us the answer

 

But the WWE will probably go the opposite way.

 

Though seeing a segment with Jones wrestling and annihilating some tough-guy inmate would be cool.

[Guest Choken One]

I could see that, or they could go with the Lame...Jones was training in Australia and snapped and assulted (he can't be a murderer) his trainer.

 

Here is my question...Did he Break out or was he paroled?

[Guest The Czech Republic]

When will he "assault" Vince?

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I'm thinkin JR is going to get "assaulted" this time.

 

JR: Hey Nathan, c'mon in here.

NJ: What is it JR... Boy, is this room dark.

JR: Yeah, err, power outage.

NJ: In just one room?

JR: Shut your pretty mouth for a second and make me feel like a man.

NJ: But, but, what about Albert?

JR: Who cares about him?! He was yesterdays news, I need a new big bald man in my life.

NJ: I'm not sure about this JR.

JR: BAH GAWD DO YOU WANNA WORK OR NOT!

NJ: Yessir.

JR: Ok Prag, it's time for your induction into the Hoss of Fame.

-----

 

John Cena-This is drastically different then all the other Wrestling Music inspired gimmicks...Sure he looks like Vanilla Ice but I could see him catching Major mainstream heat for his racist comments. Why even wrestle? How about he just manage? It worked for Mike Sanders and it can work for him.

 

1)So it's different than K-Kwick, Mo, PG-13? Really?

2)Mainstream Heat? You gotta be kidding me. The WWF is so cold right now you couldn't light a spark near an open propane tank and get heat.

3)It worked for Mike Sanders?

 

Right. You're comparing Sean O'Haire to Friar Ferguson (aka Bastion Booger)? Gimmie a break. Whether we're talking about the gimmicks or the wrestlers... neither have anything in common! Someone playing Devil's Advocate doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a "religious gimmick." He's more or less coming off as someone who "put's over" that mankind should just admit that we're just a carnal and base race of beings.

 

A religious gimmick is a religious gimmick is a religious gimmick.

 

Guys, would you prefer "Hotshot Rookie" or "Big guy"? At least they have characters.

 

There is a difference between 'character' and 'gimmick'. Steve Austins character was the foul-mouthed, beer drinking, bird flipping, SOB. His gimmick was that he was a wrestler. Nathan Jones is a convicted felon who just happens to be a wrestler (rather than a wrestler who happens to be a convicted felon.) I have no problem with character, I too was bored to death with Cenas old character (and equally bored with his new one - I like him as a heel, but god this is whack.) but when the gimmick overtakes the wrestler then it becomes a problem.

 

So the WWE needs to explain that Nathan Jones is a wrestler? Um, huge freaking guy, coming to the WWE. Is their confusion? I must be missing it...

 

Sorry, I must be the only one who doubts that the first thing a psycho inmate thinks of when he gets out of prison is "I want to be in the WWE!".

 

This time around, they appear to be more serious and constroversial topics and the Video Production certaintly enhances the characters.

 

A gimmick is a gimmick is a gimmick. The ONLY gimmick that has lasted and that has been to the Main Event level with the title is the Undertaker. And that's through freaky luck. Serious or Not, the name of the game is always WRESTLING. This is nothing more than an extention of 'the male soap opera'.

 

Imagine Goldust debuting today, It would be The greatest thing ever, just like Sean Devil's Advocate O Haire is today.

 

WTF? You've got to be kidding me.

 

Doesn't character development and motivation come out over time? Do you want a complete bio of everyone coming into the Fed right away, or do you want that sort of thing to evolve naturally?

 

Motivation should always been among the first things established. "Why are you here?" - if we don't know why a wrestler wrestles ESPECIALLY the gimmick wrestlers, then they are of no use. Just look at Kane - his character had motivation for being in the WWF - to take out the Undertaker. After that, then what? Which is why the haven't done anything good with him forever.

 

After all, people you meet on the street don't just come up to you and hand you a resume, right?

 

And you don't watch a movie and wonder throughout "why are they doing this?" (unless it is a mystery) because they try to est. that ASAP.

 

Give it time...

 

Oh geez, and when time is up and it turns to suck...then what? This has happened before, everything old is new again, and just because they are 'more adult' doesn't mean they aren't equally as insulting and lame.

 

Why do you have to explain why someone wants to be a wrestler?

 

SO I CAN CARE! Jeez, this is not a hard concept to grasp.

 

Does everyone who comes to work for the WWE have to provide an explanation in their promos????

 

It's not too much to ask. I mean, it's simple: "I want to be a wrestler for the money" "I want to be a wrestler for the fame" "I want to be a wrestler because it allows me to release all my anger and torment". Once you have the reason for a wrestler to be wrestling then you can mold their personae around it.

 

These are good gimmicks, though.

 

Is there such a thing as a 'good gimmick' aside from that of a wrestler?

 

Cena is funny as God knows what. And I think O'Haire and Jones already have the two most intriguing characters since Raven and Pillman.

 

I like how 'Intriguing" characters usually always have to be 'dark'.

 

I don't know who's been coming up with most of the ideas for the vignettes, but I'm inclined to believe it could be the same person. This is high-quality stuff to me, and it's strange someone's putting it out at a time when I find both shows (more Raw than Smackdown) to be underwhelming in terms of storylines and character development

 

I am thinking it's Steph. The way she writes - she always steals from Movies..so fucking cliched.

[Guest The Amazing Rando]

Actually...if I was a PSYCHO inmate...then the WWE just may be on the top of my list...